# Idiot-Boy! Answer the damn question! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 5, 2001, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiot-boy-answer-the-damn-question/56816 "2001-03-05T14:24:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiot-boy-answer-the-damn-question/56816/41 "2001-03-08T17:12:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > **Well, I’m not exactly undermining myself. I still think whether a deal is struck to allow peer-to-peer sharing or not, the copyright law is still going to be compromised. The ISP users, even though the ISPs are helping fill the record labels’ wallets, won’t be charged to use the services. So, the artists’ material still isn’t under their control.** I think you’re missing a point, I **paid** for the service fee enclosed with my CD R/W. People who buy cassettes pay a fee. And people who have an ISP will pay a fee. It’s just that the fee is _invisible_ but costs certainly go up if expenses go up. What? You think the ISP will just cheerfully pay up without passing it along to the consumer? And worse…the ISP would charge EVERYONE that same fee. So people who are using peer-to-peer are costing everyone who doesn’t use it money! And suddenly we have a whole **new** level of theft. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\*There’s our problem right there. Those damn pesky fans keep giving our music away, and we have no control over it. Do you see what I’m saying? > > You say the copyright laws allow the artist to “control” his stuff. But _any_ kind of peer-to-peer sharing compromises this control. > > \ > > So regardless of what “deals” are made to regulate peer-to-peer sharing…the copyright law still needs to be changed to keep a majority of control in the artists’ hands. > \*\* But I’m still not seeing that as an ‘change’ in the law. It’s only an extension of current law that covers cassettes etc. The record industry has never truly tried to hit people for _retail_ infringement (the copying of a song or songs by one person for another single person) but has always tried to tee up _wholesale_ infringement. And that’s what Napster and it’s peers are, wholesale infringement. I’d be willing to say that it comes down, not to control of fans actions, but control of the speed at which they can operate. If we go with the Napster figure that 1 billion songs were transferred (and I’m not accepting ANY corporate figure as gospel, being a corporate marketer myself) in September and each of those songs represented 50 cents to the artists and composers (a figure which I think is low) then we’re looking at a theft of $500,000,000 in one month. Colombian drug lords should be so profitable. At that rate the loss (just to the artists, not to the labels) approaches $6,000,000,000 per year. ASCAP currently claims 110,000 members so that would work out to $54,545.45 for every single member of ASCAP. That’s not an insignificant chunk of change. Don’t you think that’s something the industry should try to get a handle on? If I still had something out there I’d certainly be after my cut, I can tell you that. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > **Jimmie Haha of Jimmie’s Chicken Shack (DC faves)** > > Hell yeah! Gotta love Jimmie! Saw 'em open up for 311 a couple years ago! > > DC, eh? Ever heard of O.A.R. (of a revolution)? > \*\* Remember, I’m an old, married father these days. I’ve never run into O.A.R. But I have seen JCS several times. Including once at a rainy, muddy race track at the Mongomery County Fair. Now THAT was fun. Gotta love the mid-Atlantic. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > **In the contract the label agrees to provide services (gear, transportation, housing, studio time, marketing, etc) in return for the right to sell the bands music. The band is then responsible for recording a marketable piece of music and paying back the label for it’s up front expenses out of royalties. Once those expenses are paid back the band gets to keep their royalties.** > > Oh, so the record label never sees a _profit_?! They just break even every time? > > I know I’m being cynical here, but c’mon! When the artist…the person/group responsible for what’s on that freakin’ CD!..makes less that 1% of the profit, something is seriously wrong! You’ve _GOTTA_ agree with me here! > \*\* I hate to do this, because I think this is the dirtiest trick in a debate… Can you find a cite for that 1% figure? I’ve looked (in order to refute it) and haven’t found a back up for it. Anecdotally I can remember when Michael Jackson (in the mid-80s) signed a deal in which he got $1.25 per record sold. At an rough average of $12 per record (I told you it was the 80s!) that mean he would be getting not 1% of the net profit but 10.41% of the gross sale. Obviously MJ isn’t Joe Blow musician but I seriously doubt that, in the last 15 years we’ve gone from a top end of 10% of the gross to 1% of the net. And that doesn’t factor in composer royalties. And the fact that the majority of composers get to keep their own copyrights. This is a far cry from the 50s when Dick Clark on bandstand would tell a label, “Sure, I’ll put your stuff on…but I get half the copyright” and the label would just give it away because the label owned the copyright! > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > **…let’s not forget that, if the band’s record fails to sell (as so many do) the record label has to eat that expense. The successful bands end up paying for the unsuccessful ones.** > > And that sucks for the label, but that’s the risk they take, isn’t it? But it shouldn’t come out of the successful bands’ pockets.\*\* I sensing some hostility here. You argue that the record companies aren’t really entitle to the profits they make off the musicians work but they ARE entitled to the losses from them? I’m not seeing the logic here. Why, assuming the labels are for-profit enterprises, should the equation be unbalanced? Aren’t they entitled to the profits AND the losses? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > **Assuming that 10% are hardcore users that won’t abandon the cause at the first sign of resistance we end up with a political base of 1.4 million people. And that’s not really a lot to spur a ‘movement’ per se. Based upon that I’d have to say the odds of peer-to-peer users bringing about significant change is doubtful.** > > Well, you don’t have to be a user to help “spur the movement”. There are people who’ve never used the thing, but still support it. > \*\* Sure, but in my experience, the only people truly willing to fight for a thing are those directly effected by it. I don’t think it’s safe to say that a _volkerwanderung_ would occur lending it’s support ot peer-to-peer music sharing. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > **Well, I thought I’d done that already. Clearly, the service is responsible for effectively aiding and abetting a felony. It’s been clearly established that assisting, in an organized manner, copyright infringement is a violation itself.** > > Well, because the copyright and fair use laws are so vague, especially when applied to peer-to-peer sharing, in a sense, what they were doing wasn’t legal…it’s the users who were acting illegally. > \*\* As previously mentioned, assisting _in any way_ the commission of a felony is a felony. Napster, by definition, is assisting in massive violation of copyright. Are the individual users in violation of copyright? Of course, I think we’re all in agreement on that point. But Napster is _also_ on the shady side of the street, here. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\*Again, we can go back to the gun analogy… > > \ > > the guns are “responsible for effectively aiding and abetting a felony”, too, right? > \*\* The ‘guns’ per se are NOT aiding and abetting a felony as a gun is an object. The analogy doesn’t hold as a true analogy would have the labels suing the software itself for copyright infringement, and objects aren’t sue-able. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\*Like I said, under the vague laws, we’re supposedly allowed to make copies of music we already own (via Cassette, CDR, MP3, etc) without distribution. > > In an example, [MP3.com](http://MP3.com) began a service where they allowed users to insert a store-bought CD into their CD ROM and “Beam it” up to [MP3.com](http://MP3.com) where they take a copy of that CD in MP3 format and place it in your account. Technically, they’re just giving you storage for the music you already own. Of course, they went about it all wrong, and got called on it. > > But they were thinking in the right direction. If I own a CD, I should be able to listen to it whenever and wherever I want, in any format (Cassette, CD, MP3, etc.). > > So, Napster did have a “legal use” through a loophole (fair use) as well, but then also got caught on a loophole (copyright). > \*\* I don’t really think the fair use and ‘no legal use’ laws are all that vague. Yes, you have the right under fair use to make personal copies of a data archive (software, music, whatever) so long as you don’t distribute it. And, if MP3 had ensured that only the legitimate owner of an archive could access it I’m sure they could have been worked with. Napster, on the other hand, was set up NOT so a person could access his or her files from any location but to enable file sharing between users. By definition, the mission statement of Napster is to violate artists copyright. Again, had Napster set in place technology to prevent such file-sharing, they would have been coloring (techincally) within the lines. But I think we all are willing to admit that A) they wouldn’t have been as popular and B) that wasn’t the idea anyway. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\*Shouldn’t the gun hold the same here? Does the public really have a “legal use” for guns?? Protection? Well, there are other _non-lethal_ forms of protection… > \*\* You ARE asking for a hijack there. Two major differences in your ‘gun’ analogy (which I still don’t admit is applicable): First, a gun does have a legitimate use in hunting, target shooting, home protection, etc. Second, while arguably (and shut the hell up all you 2nd amendment heads! Go set up your own thread) gun ownership is protected by the constitution. As is copyright. The right of people to enjoy their pleasures at the expense of others, however, is not. Th’pok. Your court, my good man. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiot-boy-answer-the-damn-question/56816/42 "2001-03-08T18:14:06Z")
You guys like Jimmie’s Chicken Shack, too? A couple of years ago, they actually played here in my tiny town. The owners of this really large venue that was built for (snicker) country line-dancing (guffaw), tried to salvage the huge amounts of money they were no doubt losing for awhile by running big-club level rock acts. It was great while it lasted. Sadly, they made some bad choices on a couple of the acts they booked, lost big-time money, and stopped that practice. The edifice to line-dancing now sits largely vacant, save for children’s rollerskating on Saturdays. Anyway, The Chicken Shack was one of the few rising acts they had in, warming up for Jackyl, IIRC. Most of the acts were on their way down from the heights - Cinderella, Ratt, Quiet Riot, etc. Jimmie’s Chicken Shack _kicked ass_ live! I helped them load up their equipment after the show, and got to talk with a couple of the band members. The guitarist signed the CD I bought of there’s. Hijack over. Gee, this doesn’t even resemble a Pit thread anymore, what with this hijack and idiotboy and Jonathan all debating and making nice. How’s this? ANY NUMB-FUCK THAT DOESN’T LIKE JIMMIE’S CHICKEN SHACK CAN GO FORNICATE WITH A WOOD-CHIPPER! [sub]better?[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![idiotboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@idiotboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/idiotboy)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiot-boy-answer-the-damn-question/56816/43 "2001-03-08T21:59:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance \* > **I think you’re missing a point, I paid for the service fee enclosed with my CD R/W. People who buy cassettes pay a fee. And people who have an ISP will pay a fee. It’s just that the fee is _invisible_ but costs certainly go up if expenses go up. What? You think the ISP will just cheerfully pay up without passing it along to the consumer?** No, I know the ISP costs will go up, but it’ll be slight. Hardly noticable. I don’t expect people to get it all for free…just reasonably priced, compared to CDs… > [@](#): > > \*\*And worse…the ISP would charge EVERYONE that same fee. So people who are using peer-to-peer are costing everyone who doesn’t use it money! > > And suddenly we have a whole **new** level of theft.\*\* Ah-ha! But this is what the label does, right? The unsuccessful bands are costing the successful bands money. OK, so it doesn’t translate exactly… But this happens ALL the time. Companies always jack up prices due to shoplifting, damaged merchandise, losses, etc…even though it’s not every consumers’ fault. Or with the recent Natural Gas price hikes. I certainly don’t use as much gas as the businesses down the street, but because they use so much, the prices are going up, and I have to pay more! It’s not theft…it’s “business as usual”…companies just recouping their losses. > [@](#): > > \*\*But I’m still not seeing that as an ‘change’ in the law. It’s only an extension of current law that covers cassettes etc. > > \ > > ASCAP currently claims 110,000 members so that would work out to $54,545.45 for every single member of ASCAP. > > That’s not an insignificant chunk of change. Don’t you think that’s something the industry should try to get a handle on? If I still had something out there I’d certainly be after my cut, I can tell you that.\*\* Well, there’s a difference here. You’re comparing royalties based on a single play vs. royalties based on total number of listeners. There’s the major difference between Napster and the other forms of distribution. In radio & TV, the royalties are measured by airtime. However, if you base the royalties on the total number of listeners, you’ll come up with the $54,000+ per artists there, too. However, it wouldn’t be fair to only pay a royalty on a single song that millions of people have access to, like on Napster. Change…Extension…same thing. Basically any kind addition to the law. Something that can cover all the bases…a “Golden Rule”, if you will. And I guess this “Golden Rule” is what were looking for. We all disagree on what this rule should be, as would almost every other artists out there. I, as an unsigned artist looking for big time exposure, want as much “fan freedom” as possible, so they can do what they want with my music. However, without a major community like Napster, it’ll be alot harder for us to be heard. Without the big names there, no one will come. The already established well-off artists, want the total opposite. They want no one to give anything of their’s away for free. They wanna squeeze every penny of profit from it. So, where’s the middle ground? I wish _I_ knew… > [@](#): > > **Remember, I’m an old, married father these days. I’ve never run into O.A.R.** They’re a buncha kids from DC, who are all in school up here at Ohio State U. They’ve gotten big over the past couple years. Just wondering if ya heard of 'em. > [@](#): > > \*\*I hate to do this, because I think this is the dirtiest trick in a debate… > > Can you find a cite for that 1% figure?\*\* Sorry…not an exact figure. Im probably exaggerating, mainly because I’ve never seen a real contract in my life and have only heard horror stories on “Behind the Music”. But I still think it’s freaking unfair, dammit! > [@](#): > > **I sensing some hostility here. You argue that the record companies aren’t really entitle to the profits they make off the musicians work but they ARE entitled to the losses from them? I’m not seeing the logic here. Why, assuming the labels are for-profit enterprises, should the equation be unbalanced? Aren’t they entitled to the profits AND the losses?** Ok, wait a second. There’s a difference between how I _feel_ it should be, and the way it is. **The way it is** (from what I understand): The record label makes a crapload from the CD sales of a successful band called _Band A_, but incur major losses on untalented pieces of cow dung called _Band B_. The label takes a little extra percentage out of _Band A_’s next record to cover those losses. So the label never sees a negative bank account, or at least the major ones won’t. **The way I feel it should be** : No record labels! See how much less complicated my fantasy world is?!? 😃 Seriously, though. I think, originally, record labels were a great idea. Help artists who can’t afford to record, produce and distribute their CD. A “noble” cause. But like in most industries, the one’s with the most get greedy. Then you have what the industry is today. But now with all of the online tools available to independent bands, it’s possible to be successful without the need of a label. Just a little elbow grease and some motivation, _anyone_ can promote themselves…I have. But without Napster, we’re seriously crippled in our attempts at exposure. Anyways, I’m babbling here… > [@](#): > > **Sure, but in my experience, the only people truly willing to fight for a thing are those directly effected by it. I don’t think it’s safe to say that a _volkerwanderung_ would occur lending it’s support ot peer-to-peer music sharing.** Ok, I’ll drop this point, because now that I think about it, it really doesn’t make sense… > [@](#): > > **As previously mentioned, assisting _in any way_ the commission of a felony is a felony. Napster, by definition, is assisting in massive violation of copyright. > Are the individual users in violation of copyright? Of course, I think we’re all in agreement on that point. But Napster is _also_ on the shady side of the street, here.** Alright…I’ll admit it…I’m not a lawyer. So, help me out here: Napster had a disclaimer on the main screen every time you logged in, placing the responsibility on the user…why didn’t that protect them? Am I wrong in thinking it should have? You said that we do have the right to make personal copies, and downloading those copies off of Napster, of material we already own is legal, right? That’s what Napster was supposed to be used for…but obviously it wasn’t. Kinda like the “For Tobacco use only” products. What person actually smokes tobacco from a bong? I mean c’mon, who are they foolin’? They seem to get away with it by placing a “rule” on something that’s obviously sold solely on the fact that the rule is blatantly ignored! > [@](#): > > **The ‘guns’ per se are NOT aiding and abetting a felony as a gun is an object.** Is Napster _NOT_ an object? > [@](#): > > **The analogy doesn’t hold as a true analogy would have the labels suing the software itself for copyright infringement, and objects aren’t sue-able.** But that’s what I’m saying! You can’t sue a gun and you can’t sue a software program. You _can_ sue the people resposible for manufacturing that product, right? What is the reason why this analogy doesn’t work? They seems almost identical. Both products are _mainly_ used illegally (copyright infringement & murder)…but are i_intended_ for legal purposes (legal personal copying & hunting/target shooting/protection). > [@](#): > > **Second, while arguably (and shut the hell up all you 2nd amendment heads! Go set up your own thread) gun ownership is protected by the constitution. As is copyright. The right of people to enjoy their pleasures at the expense of others, however, is not.** But whether you’re protected to own a gun, you are **not** protected to kill someone with it… You don’t even need an amendment in the constitution to own software. It should be _less_ of an issue! **Milo** - You fuckin’ rock!!! 😃 Yeah, we’ve got one of those “Big hair band retirement clubs” here in Columbus, Ohio. Seems every weekend is another flashback to the 80’s! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiot-boy-answer-the-damn-question/56816/44 "2001-03-08T23:19:08Z")
Assisting _in any way_ in a felony is not a crime. If the bank robbers drive a car, the car is assisting them in commiting their felony. But the car manufacturer is not liable. If the bank robbers were walking down the street and someone gave them a lift to the next town, not knowing they were bank robbers, that person would not be liable. Napster allows users to share files, in this case sound files. They really have no way to know whether the files are copyrighted or not, except by the titles people give them. But anyway, lets say that Napster does manage to shut down all sharing of copyrighted files on their system. What happens then? They shut down since no one uses them anymore. The vulnerability of the Napster system is that it requires a central server that can be shut down and a central company running the server that can be sued. But there are systems that do not require a central server, and are not released by a company hoping to make a profit…they are freeware, no one can be sued for writing them. Sure, you can sue napster, but how do you sue some kid in a basement who released his software anonymously? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2001, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiot-boy-answer-the-damn-question/56816/45 "2001-03-09T15:08:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\*No, I know the ISP costs will go up, but it’ll be slight. Hardly noticable. I don’t expect people to get it all for free…just reasonably priced, compared to CDs… > \*\* Even if it went up a dollar a month (which would be the minimum, I’d guess), you’d be looking at transferring tens of millions of dollars per month from Joe Blow citizen to the labels pockets. And I repeat, most of those persons won’t be using a peer-to-peer file sharing system. Can you, ethically, insist that someone else pay for your pleasure? I mean, hey, it sounds good in principle, but I have visions of myself paying for someone else to play lawn darts or something somewhere down the road… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\*Ah-ha! But this is what the label does, right? The unsuccessful bands are costing the successful bands money. OK, so it doesn’t translate exactly… > > But this happens ALL the time. Companies always jack up prices due to shoplifting, damaged merchandise, losses, etc…even though it’s not every consumers’ fault. Or with the recent Natural Gas price hikes. I certainly don’t use as much gas as the businesses down the street, but because they use so much, the prices are going up, and I have to pay more! > > It’s not theft…it’s “business as usual”…companies just recouping their losses.\*\* Don’t get me started on natural gas prices. I’m out 2 grand so far this _year_ on propane. I supply my own. (And let me tell you that I’m currently with a firm called _Public Utilities Reports_. I could puke up more analysis about the rise in energy (not just natural gas) costs than you would want to hear. Be warned.) What were we talking about? Oh yeah! Yes, risk assessment by retail chains and corporations is spread out as a cost of business issue. Nonetheless, each industry does what it can to minimize that risk and cost by combatting it. They attempt to catch shoplifters, consultants look for ways to reduce damage in transit, etc. These efforts are costly and difficult but they’re worthwhile because it enables the firms to keep their prices lower than they would be if the allowed wholesale shoplifting etc. And lower prices=more business. So I don’t think saying, ‘It’s business as usual’, helps your argument. Business as usual attempts to minimize loss through theft, which is what the labels are attempting to do. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\*Well, there’s a difference here. You’re comparing royalties based on a single play vs. royalties based on total number of listeners. > > There’s the major difference between Napster and the other forms of distribution. > > In radio & TV, the royalties are measured by airtime. However, if you base the royalties on the total number of listeners, you’ll come up with the $54,000+ per artists there, too. > > However, it wouldn’t be fair to only pay a royalty on a single song that millions of people have access to, like on Napster. > \*\* I’m not sure I understand your point here. ASCAP has set up its royalty structure based upon number of ‘users’ (those using a piece of copyrighted work through listening or performing or what have you). I don’t think it would be unreasonable for ASCAP to set up a royalty system through Napster (or the ISPs, I suppose) based upon the number of ASCAP covered songs available for d/l or actually d/l’d. And I don’t believe for a minute that Napster couldn’t track what songs are being d/l’d. That’s a pretty simple application of existing technology. But suppose Napster got charged 10 cents (which is low) for each d/l’d song? With reported (no cite, I saw it yesterday) of 1 billion songs transferred in September, Napster would then be liable for $100,000,000 per month in royalty fees to ASCAP _in addition_ to whatever fees are due to the record labels. That means to break even, if we assume 1.5 million users (not stipulated, just a WAG) those users would have to pay Napster $66/month _just for Napster to cover one small segment_ of it’s costs. Plus overhead, salaries, technology, licensing, etc… I don’t think it’d be unthinkable that Napster monthly fee would have to be in the $80-100/month framework to make a profit. And if the artists and labels got half of that (call it $40/month) I’m sure they’d be happy because that would guarantee them a revenue stream each month from people who would not have spent that same amount on CDs each and every month over the course of a year. Remember, that’s the equivalent of buying 2-3 CD’s every single month. That gets costly. I know I couldn’t do it when I was young. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\*Change…Extension…same thing. Basically any kind addition to the law. Something that can cover all the bases…a “Golden Rule”, if you will. And I guess this “Golden Rule” is what were looking for. We all disagree on what this rule should be, as would almost every other artists out there. > > I, as an unsigned artist looking for big time exposure, want as much “fan freedom” as possible, so they can do what they want with my music. However, without a major community like Napster, it’ll be alot harder for us to be heard. Without the big names there, no one will come. > > The already established well-off artists, want the total opposite. They want no one to give anything of their’s away for free. They wanna squeeze every penny of profit from it. > > So, where’s the middle ground? I wish _I_ knew… > \*\* In terms of a middle gorund I don’t really see the need. Current law covers this situation (with, as discussed, some modification to apply existing applications to a new technology). Bang, the artists get paid, the label gets paid, and everybody’s friends again. And I certainly have no objection to Napster (or anyone) giving away music if the copyright holder has no problem with it. If you wish to give away your work I salute you. But I feel a need to abide by a copyright holders wishes on the other side, too. In the above paragrpah you tell me that it will be difficult to promote a file-sharing community without a centralized site and the larger acts to draw fans. Is this then, about _convenience_ (not unlike something **Milo** said way up there)? If so, I find that reasoning indefensible. Convenience as a justification for violating anothers rights wouldn’t hold up regardless of any example. I am inconvenienced by my morning commute. Traffic is bad and slow. For my convenience, would I be justified in slashing the tires of the other cars parked on Charles Town Pike? Or blocking the road immediately north of my house so those dang West Virginians couldn’t come barreling down Route 9 at 90 mph? (Curiously, that last has been actually proposed) > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > **Remember, I’m an old, married father these days. I’ve never run into O.A.R.** > > They’re a buncha kids from DC, who are all in school up here at Ohio State U. They’ve gotten big over the past couple years. Just wondering if ya heard of 'em. > \*\* I haven’t, I admit. But I support, as a matter of policy, any mid-Atlantic band trying to make a mark. Send them my love. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\*Sorry…not an exact figure. Im probably exaggerating, mainly because I’ve never seen a real contract in my life and have only heard horror stories on “Behind the Music”. But I still think it’s freaking unfair, dammit! > \*\* OK, I can’t find a figure either. And, during my musician phase, I never came within a light year of a real contract either. But speaking from a publishing perspective (books this time) I can tell you that our costs are typically between 70-85% of the cost of any single sale. If we apply that (an example I admit is shaky, but it’s the best I can do right now) to CD sales and we bring in an average CD price of $15 (for ease of math) then the record company clears about $3.75 (at 75% cost of production) per CD. If the part of that they credit the artist with is 20% then the artist makes 75 cents per CD sold. Now, bearing in mind that the risk is entirely the labels, is that unreasonable? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\*Ok, wait a second. There’s a difference between how I _feel_ it should be, and the way it is. > > **The way it is** (from what I understand): The record label makes a crapload from the CD sales of a successful band called _Band A_, but incur major losses on untalented pieces of cow dung called _Band B_. The label takes a little extra percentage out of _Band A_’s next record to cover those losses. So the label never sees a negative bank account, or at least the major ones won’t. > \*\* Well, I’d have to point out that Band A (in your example) doesn’t have their percentage reduced because the labels had a year of mostly dogs. Their percentage is locked in due to their contract. Neither the artist _nor_ the label can unilaterally change that contract. At the most, the label can elect to drop the artist, at which point the artist is free to pursue a new, better deal. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\*The way I feel it should be: No record labels! > \*\* And here, I think, we come at last to the crux of the biscuit. It is certainly possible, at this point in history, for bands to operate without labels. However, this is a slower and less certain process. What the labels sell to the bands is both certainty and security. Some bands elect, when they sign, to go on _salary_ from the labels and treat that as their advance to pay off later. They also know, when they sign, that at such and suchc a time they will be in studio, paid for by the label, recording 50 minutes of music for release at such and such a time. Bands that go the independent route, however, have no such thing as security **or** certainty. But they do have freedom and get to keep a larger share of the proceeds of their work. Now, given these two choices, if a band chooses to go the customary ‘label’ route, shouldn’t they act within the guidelines of their contract? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > **As previously mentioned, assisting _in any way_ the commission of a felony is a felony. Napster, by definition, is assisting in massive violation of copyright. > > Are the individual users in violation of copyright? Of course, I think we’re all in agreement on that point. But Napster is _also_ on the shady side of the street, here.** > > Alright…I’ll admit it…I’m not a lawyer. > > So, help me out here: Napster had a disclaimer on the main screen every time you logged in, placing the responsibility on the user…why didn’t that protect them? Am I wrong in thinking it should have? You said that we do have the right to make personal copies, and downloading those copies off of Napster, of material we already own is legal, right? That’s what Napster was supposed to be used for…but obviously it wasn’t. > > Kinda like the “For Tobacco use only” products. What person actually smokes tobacco from a bong? I mean c’mon, who are they foolin’? They seem to get away with it by placing a “rule” on something that’s obviously sold solely on the fact that the rule is blatantly ignored! > \*\* Hey, I’m not a lawyer either, but in my work I need to be extrememly cognizant of copyright issues. Comes of being in publishing. Napster has a disclaimer, but it’s not on the front page. But I argue again that Napster has no fair use as currently constructed other than to promote the violation of the rights of copyright holders. If their business model had stated that they were there to promote ‘portability’ of music and they had taken steps to ensure that, if a person u/l a file only that person could listen to it (and, for that matter, that the file was played FROM a Napster server, not transferred to a new system) I think they’d be perfectly within the law to do so. But Napster has always associated itself with the happy-go-lucky transfer of copyrighted works _between_ users. And that’s where the step in to the area of ‘aiding and abetting felony violation of copyright’. As for the ‘tobacco use only’ issue I’ve found one cite for Nebraska where a head shop has had it’s supply of drug paraphenalia (sp?) confiscated regardless of that ‘TUO’ notices. Here’s the cite: [http://www.theindependent.com/Archive/110198/stories/110198/New\_store1101.html](http://www.theindependent.com/Archive/110198/stories/110198/New_store1101.html) It’s old but I think it applies. I can also offer, anecdotally, that the local record store that specialized in head gear (Penguin Feather records, Rockville, MD) in the 80s had to pull it’s material and eventually went under when Maryland decided that it was time to crackdown on head shops. It’s my not-so-legal opinion that TUO advertising of products that are used for illegal purposes is still against the law but most areas that allow it don’t deem it a worthwhile prosecution. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > **The ‘guns’ per se are NOT aiding and abetting a felony as a gun is an object.** > > Is Napster _NOT_ an object? > \*\* No, Napster is a corporation. A completely sue-able entity. However strange the legal fiction of a corporation as a ‘person’ is to me, it’s still true. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > **The analogy doesn’t hold as a true analogy would have the labels suing the software itself for copyright infringement, and objects aren’t sue-able.** > > But that’s what I’m saying! You can’t sue a gun and you can’t sue a software program. You _can_ sue the people resposible for manufacturing that product, right? > > What is the reason why this analogy doesn’t work? They seems almost identical. Both products are _mainly_ used illegally (copyright infringement & murder)…but are i_intended_ for legal purposes (legal personal copying & hunting/target shooting/protection). > \*\* I think I could cheerfully conclude that the majority of guns in the US are **not** used for illegal acts. But apart from that, I think I still have the effective argument that Napster is **not** designed as a file-copying-for-portability system. Guns are purchased with the belief on the part of the seller that they will be used for legitimate purposes. When Napster, on their site states: > [@](#): > > _From [Napster.com](http://Napster.com)_ > Washington matters. The record companies have hired lobbyists and made big donations to politicians to promote their interests. You need to make your voice heard. Tell Congress that file sharing over the Internet should not be shut down. and > [@](#): > > _Ibid_ > Stay connected to the Napster Community by running the Napster application even when you’re not actively searching for MP3s or communicating with other Community members. and lastly > [@](#): > > _From their corporate overview_ > Napster is the world’s leading file sharing community. **Napster’s software application enables users to locate and share media files** from one convenient, easy-to-use interface. It also provides media fans a forum to communicate their interests and tastes with one another via instant messaging, chat rooms, and Hot List user bookmarks. Highlighting my own. I think they’ve stated their position fairly clearly. And it’s a position that puts them directly in the wrong in regards to copyright laws. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by idiotboy \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > **Second, while arguably (and shut the hell up all you 2nd amendment heads! Go set up your own thread) gun ownership is protected by the constitution. As is copyright. The right of people to enjoy their pleasures at the expense of others, however, is not.** > > But whether you’re protected to own a gun, you are **not** protected to kill someone with it… > \*\* And if you do so, you should be prosecuted for that act. So, if Napster is setting up a system enabling millions to violate copyright, shouldn’t they then be prosecuted for that act? Now I’m thinking of going off and nominating this thread for ‘Most Courteous BBQ Pit Thread’! ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2001, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiot-boy-answer-the-damn-question/56816/46 "2001-03-09T15:22:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lemur866 \* > \*\*Assisting _in any way_ in a felony is not a crime. If the bank robbers drive a car, the car is assisting them in commiting their felony. But the car manufacturer is not liable. If the bank robbers were walking down the street and someone gave them a lift to the next town, not knowing they were bank robbers, that person would not be liable. > \*\* I’d have to say that neither of your cases apply. In the first one, the car is sold with the good faith belief on the part of the sales office that it would be used for legal purposes. In the second, the law has always had ‘intent’ as a part of the legal process. If the person giving the bank robbers a ride is unaware of the crime then they have not assisted in the commission of a crime but rather, were duped. However, waiting in the car out front with the motor running, is against the law. While that person didn’t actually rob the bank, they made it easier for the thieves to commit it and knew they were doing so. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lemur866 \* > **Napster allows users to share files, in this case sound files. They really have no way to know whether the files are copyrighted or not, except by the titles people give them. But anyway, lets say that Napster does manage to shut down all sharing of copyrighted files on their system. What happens then? They shut down since no one uses them anymore.** There are two points here. First, is Napster aware of it’s crimes? I’d have to say (with respect, **Lemur** ) that it’s extremely disingenuous to say that Napster isn’t aware that the vast majority of the file transfers acheived through the Napster service are of copyrighted material. For crying out loud, they specifically mention copyrighted material in their promotion literature **and** have a designated ‘Copyright Agent’ mentioned in their corporate policies. It’s safe to say that they know what gives. Second, if Napster does block all access to copyrighted works (as I think they should, at the discretion of the rights holder) and they shut down through lack of use, doesn’t that, through basic logic, mean that they _were_ being used exclusively as a means to avoid copyright? I’d think that would simply be proof-positive that the label interests were indeed being violated by Napster and its users. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lemur866 \* > \*\*The vulnerability of the Napster system is that it requires a central server that can be shut down and a central company running the server that can be sued. But there are systems that do not require a central server, and are not released by a company hoping to make a profit…they are freeware, no one can be sued for writing them. Sure, you can sue napster, but how do you sue some kid in a basement who released his software anonymously? > \*\* As IB and I have discussed, it’s not necessarily the software that is in violation of copyright, it’s the ones who make it available. In the case above, each of those systems has to be hosted somewhere, and I’m pretty certain the hosting of such would fall under the ‘no legal use’ doctrine of copyright law. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2001, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiot-boy-answer-the-damn-question/56816/47 "2001-03-12T14:53:06Z")
Just giving this a bump to see if Idiot Boy is paying attention this week. Nothing to see here, move along… ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2001, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiot-boy-answer-the-damn-question/56816/48 "2001-03-13T09:17:36Z")
Sorry, this is a bit of a diversion… Anyone who bothers to read my ramblings knows where I stand on this subject, but in case you steer clear, I’ll tell you that I think IP theft is unholy and Napster is the high priest at that alter. So, I’ve got a bit of moral discomfort right now, because I (and my company) have just taken on some big work for Napster. We do network security stuff. I thought this was kind of interesting: Napster is in an unmarked building. They have a locked front door that the receptionist needs to open to let you in. They get periodic bomb threats. Whenever they have a high-profile news piece, like a judge rules or something, they have an armed guard at the front door. Their network is attacked almost daily. I was surprised to discover the number of enemies they had in the public at large. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiot-boy-answer-the-damn-question/56816.md?page=2)